Jeffrey D. Wilson

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Simulating Global AeroMACS Airport Ground

Station Antenna Power Transmission Limits To 

Avoid Interference With Mobile Satellite Service 

Feeder Uplinks

NASA/TP—2013-216480

April 2013
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI 

Information Desk at 443–757–5803

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 STI Information Desk

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Jeffrey D. Wilson

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Simulating Global AeroMACS Airport Ground

Station Antenna Power Transmission Limits To 

Avoid Interference With Mobile Satellite Service 

Feeder Uplinks

NASA/TP—2013-216480

April 2013

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Federal Aviation Administration for funding this work.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by expert reviewer(s). 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 1 

Simulating Global AeroMACS Airport Ground Station Antenna Power 

Transmission Limits To Avoid Interference With Mobile 

Satellite Service Feeder Uplinks 

Jeffrey D. Wilson 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Summary 

The Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System 

(AeroMACS), which is based upon the IEEE 802.16e mobile 

wireless standard, is expected to be implemented in the 5091 

to 5150 MHz frequency band. As this band is also occupied by 

Mobile Satellite Service feeder uplinks, AeroMACS must be 

designed to avoid interference with this incumbent service. 

The aspects of AeroMACS operation that present potential 

interference are under analysis in order to enable the definition 

of standards that assure that such interference will be avoided. 

In this study, the cumulative interference power distribution at 

low Earth orbit from transmitters at global airports was 

simulated with the Visualyse Professional software. The 

dependence of the interference power on antenna distribution, 

gain patterns, duty cycle, and antenna tilt was simulated. As a 

function of these parameters, the simulation results are 

presented in terms of the limitations on transmitter power from 

global airports required to maintain the cumulative 

interference power under the established threshold. 

Introduction 

The Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System 

(AeroMACS), which is based upon the IEEE 802.16e mobile 

wireless standard, is envisioned as a wireless network 

covering all areas of the airport surface for next-generation air 

transportation (Ref. 1). The system would accommodate all 

mobile communications requirements including parked and 

taxiing aircraft, various types of ground vehicles, and 

personnel as well as connection to fixed assets related to 

airport safety requirements (such as surveillance and 

navigation aids, weather sensors, and communications 

stations). 

AeroMACS is intended to operate in portions of the 5000 to 

5150 MHz frequency band, in particular 5091 to 5150 MHz. It 

is essential that the AeroMACS service does not interfere with 

other users in this band. In particular, the allocation of the 

5091 to 5150 MHz band to the Earth-to-space fixed-satellite 

service (FSS), limited to feeder links of nongeostationary 

satellite systems in the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) and 

utilized by the Globalstar network, will restrict the power 

levels that will be allowed for the AeroMACS networks. This 

investigation is focused on helping to establish practical limits 

on AeroMACS transmissions from airports so that the 

threshold of interference into Globalstar feeder links is not 

exceeded. This threshold interference power level for 

Globalstar at low Earth orbit (LEO) has been established at 

–157.3 dBW corresponding to a 2 percent increase of the 

satellite receiver’s noise temperature (Ref. 2). 

Previously, the interference power distribution at LEO from 

the AeroMACS transmitters at the 497 largest airports in the 

contiguous United States was simulated with the Visualyse 

Professional software (Transfinite Systems Ltd.) (Ref. 3). The 

results were shown to correlate well with those of a previous 

study by MITRE–CAASD (Ref. 4). Both omnidirectional and 

sector antennas were modeled and 5- and 10-MHz channels 

were considered with a center frequency of 5100 MHz. 

In Reference 5, the effect of the antenna-gain profile on 

interference power was investigated and the model accuracy 

was improved by including a profile based on measured data. 

It was assumed that the channel bandwidth was 5 MHz, 

centered at 5100 MHz. The effect of the inhomogeneous 

distribution of airports was examined by comparing the 

baseline case with a case where the airports were evenly 

distributed. Dependence of the interference power on the 

number of airport antenna beams and their directions was also 

simulated. 

In this report, the airport database increased from 497 to 

6207 airports including more sites from North America, 

Europe, and all other continents. Nineteen cases with 

variations in antenna distribution, antenna-gain pattern, and 

antenna tilt are examined. Based on the simulations, 

recommendations are provided for global airport ground 

station antenna power transmission limitations. 

Analysis 

Interference modeling was performed with Visualyse 

Professional Version 7 software from Transfinite Systems 

Limited (Ref. 6). Details for using this software are provided 

in (Ref. 7) with the modeling procedure summarized as 

follows: 

1. Define antenna-gain dependence on azimuthal and 

elevation angles. 

2. Locate stations (transmitters and receivers). 

3. Specify carrier frequency and bandwidth. 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 2 

4. Set up the propagation environment. 

5. Set up the links between stations. 

6. Define victim and interfering links. 

7. Specify desired output, submit run, and analyze results. 

Two different antenna-gain patterns were used in the 

simulations. The first was for an 80 beamwidth sector 

antenna and was based on the manufacturer’s data for the 

antennas used in the Cleveland airport testbed experiments 

(Ref. 5). The second was for a 120 beamwidth sector antenna 

and was based on the recommendation of the International 

Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector 

ITU–R F.1336–3 (Refs. 8 and 9). The model elevation and 

azimuthal-gain patterns for these two antennas are shown in 

Figures 1 and 2, respectively. 

Antenna locations were selected from the OpenFlights 

database (Ref. 10), which includes the locations of 6207 

global airports and are shown in Figure 3. Airports that did not 

have an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 

location identifier (a four-character alphanumeric code) were 

assumed to have minimal traffic and were not included. 

Transmission was centered at 5100 MHz with a 5 MHz 

bandwidth. The propagation model utilized basic transmission 

loss in free space, based on ITU–R Rec. P.525. Five runs were 

performed for each of the following cases with the antennas 

pointing in different random directions, except for case 2, 

which is pseudo-omnidirectional. 

Case 1. This is the baseline case with 6207 worldwide 

airports, each with a single 80 beamwidth sector antenna. The 

airport locations are shown in Figure 3. 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 3 

Case 2. This case is pseudo-omnidirectional, with four 80

beamwidth sector antennas with directions separated by 90 at 

each of the 6207 airports (Fig. 3). 

Case 3. Here and in cases 4 and 5, the number of antennas is 

doubled in specific regions to determine each region’s relative 

impact on the interference hot spot. In this scenario two 80

beamwidth sector antennas are positioned at each of the 1510 

contiguous United States, Canadian, and Central American 

airports (ICAO sections K, C, and M). One sector antenna is 

positioned at each of the other 4697 airports (Fig. 3). 

Case 4. Two 80 beamwidth sector antennas are positioned at 

each of the 1338 European airports (ICAO sections E and L). 

One sector antenna is positioned at each of the other 4869 

airports (Fig. 3). 

Case 5. Two 80 beamwidth sector antennas are positioned at 

each of the 3359 non-North American and non-European 

airports. One sector antenna is positioned at each of the 2848 

North American and European airports (Fig. 3).

Case 6. In cases 1 to 5, it was assumed that all sector antennas 

transmitted 100 percent of the time. Here and in cases 7 and 8, 

the effects of different duty cycles are considered by randomly 

turning off some of the transmitters. This is the same as 

case 1, except that the transmitters are randomly turned off at 

25 percent of the 6207 airports, leaving 4655 airports 

transmitting with one 80 beamwidth sector antenna each 

(Fig. 4). 

Case 7. This is the same as case 1, except that the transmitters 

are randomly turned off at 50 percent of the 6207 airports, 

leaving 3104 airports transmitting with one 80 beamwidth

sector antenna (Fig. 5). 

Case 8. This is the same as case 1, except that the transmitters 

are randomly turned off at 75 percent of the 6207 airports, 

leaving 1552 airports transmitting with one 80 beamwidth

sector antenna (Fig. 6). 

Case 9. Here and in the remaining cases, the airport categories 

are divided into large, medium, and small sizes. The 35 

Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP 35) airports in the 

United States (Ref. 11) are assigned as large airports and the 

next 123 airports with the most 2009 passenger boardings 

from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) 

Commercial Service Airports CY09 Passenger Boardings list 

(Ref. 12) are assigned as medium airports. The 50 largest 

European airports as listed by Wikipedia (Ref. 13) are 

assigned as large airports and the next 50 on the list are 

assigned as medium airports. The remaining 5949 airports in 

the United States, Europe, and the rest of world from the 

OpenFlights database (Ref. 10) are assigned to be small 

airports. The large airports have eight 80 beamwidth sector 

antennas each, medium airports have four 80 sector antennas 

each, and small airports have one 80 sector antenna each 

(Fig. 3). 

Case 10. In a previous analysis (Ref. 9), European airport 

transmitters were modeled with 120 beamwidth sector 

antennas. Thus, in case 10 each of the 50 large European 

airports have six 120 beamwidth sector antennas; each of the 

50 medium European airports have three 120 beamwidth 

sector antennas; and each small European airport has one 120

beamwidth sector antenna. Each of the 35 large U.S. airports 

has six 80 beamwidth sector antennas; each of the 123 

medium U.S. airports has three 80 beamwidth sector 

antennas; and each small U.S. airport and the rest of the world 

has one 80 beamwidth sector antenna (Fig. 3). 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 4 

Case 11. This is the same as case 10, except that all airports 

use 120 sector antennas. The 35 large U.S. and 50 large 

European airports have six 120 sector antennas each; the 123 

medium U.S. and 50 medium European airports have three 

120 sector antennas each; and the remaining 5949 airports in 

North America, Europe, and the rest of world have one 120

sector antenna each (Fig. 3). 

Case 12. This is the same as case 11, except that transmitters 

for 25 percent of the small airports are turned off. 

Case 13. This is the same as case 11, except that transmitters 

for 50 percent of the small airports are turned off. 

Case 14. This is the same as case 11, except that transmitters 

for 75 percent of the small airports are turned off. 

Case 15. All previous cases assumed that all airports operate 

on the same channel. In a more realistic scenario, medium and 

small airports will not need to use all of the 11 channels. 

Case 15 assumes that large airports will use all 11 channels, 

medium airports will use 6 channels, and small airports will 

use just 1 channel. Thus 5 out of 11 medium airport 

transmitters and 10 out of 11 small airport transmitters are 

turned off to model the results for a single channel (Fig. 7). 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 5 

Case 16. This is the same as case 15 except that the small 

airports are only allowed to transmit half as much power per 

sector as the medium and large airports. This was modeled by 

turning off half of the small airport transmitters in case 15 

(Fig. 8). 

Case 17. To establish limits on transmitter power as a function 

of elevation angle, each sector antenna from case 15 was set to 

a 1 upward tilt (Fig. 3). 

Case 18. To establish limits on transmitter power as a function 

of elevation angle, each sector antenna from case 15 has a 2

upward tilt (Fig. 3). 

Case 19. To establish limits on transmitter power as a function 

of elevation angle, each sector antenna from case 15 has a 4

upward tilt (Fig. 3). 

The antenna distributions for these cases are summarized in 

Table I. 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 6 

TABLE I.—NUMBER AND BEAMWIDTH OF SECTOR ANTENNAS FOR EACH AIRPORT CATEGORY 

Case Large 

U.S. 

(35) 

Large 

European 

(50) 

Medium 

U.S. 

(123) 

Medium 

European 

(50) 

Small 

North 

American 

(1352) 

Small 

European 

(1238) 

Small 

Other 

(3359) 

Notes 

1 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 Baseline 

2 4 at 80 4 at 80 4 at 80 4 at 80 4 at 80 4 at 80 4 at 80 Pseudo-omnidirectional 

3 2 at 80 1 at 80 2 at 80 1 at 80 2 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 North American emphasis 

4 1 at 80 2 at 80 1 at 80 2 at 80 1 at 80 2 at 80 1 at 80 European emphasis 

5 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 2 at 80 Other emphasis 

 

6 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 25% reduced 

7 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 50% reduced 

8 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 75% reduced 

9 8 at 80 8 at 80 4 at 80 4 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 1 at 80 Size effects 

10 6 at 80 6 at 120 3 at 80 3 at 120 1 at 80 1 at 120 1 at 80 Mixed antennas 

 

11 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 All 120

12 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 25% small airports off 

13 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 50% small airports off 

14 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 75% small airports off 

15 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 Channel reduction 

 

16 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 Small airports half power 

17 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 upward tilt 

18 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 2 upward tilt 

19 6 at 120 6 at 120 3 at 120 3 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 1 at 120 4 upward tilt 

Results 

In all scenarios except for case 2, five runs were made for 

each with different random antenna pointing directions. 

Figure 9 shows a typical resulting cumulative, interference 

power pattern at LEO. The maximum interference power is at 

the hot spot over the northern Atlantic Ocean. To obtain the 

allowable transmitted power for each run, the power 

transmitted per antenna is adjusted so that the hot spot power 

is at the threshold value of –157.3 dBW. Table II shows the 

results for the allowable power per sector antenna for each run 

and the average value. 

Case 1 is the baseline scenario with a randomly directed 80

sector antenna at each of the 6207 airports and an average 

allowable transmitted power per antenna of 100.9 mW. In 

case 2, each airport has four 80 beamwidth sector antennas 

with directions separated by 90 to approximate an 

omnidirectional antenna. Since this is virtually 

omnidirectional, only one run was necessary in this case. The 

resulting allowable power for each of the four antennas was 

25.6 mW, which is equivalent to 102.4 mW per airport and is 

comparable to the allowable transmitted power per airport in 

case 1. 

The impact of different regions on the hot spot is 

investigated next. In cases 3, 4, and 5 the resulting average 

allowable transmitted power is 77.4, 59.5, and 89.2 mW, 

respectively, with the number of antennas doubled in North 

America, Europe, and other regions of the world. The hot spot 

is the most sensitive to the European airports because their 

geographic density is higher than that of North America and 

the other regions. North American airports still have a 

significant impact and the rest of the world has only a small 

impact. All previous cases assumed that all sector antennas 

transmitted 100 percent of the time on a specific channel. In 

cases 6, 7, and 8, the antenna distribution is the same as case 1 

except that 25, 50, and 75 percent of the transmitters are 

turned off, respectively. This allows significantly more power 

to be transmitted at 134.9 mW with 25 percent of the 

transmitters off; 193.1 mW with 50 percent off; and 

379.0 mW with 75 percent off. 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 7 

TABLE II.—TOTAL NUMBER OF SECTOR ANTENNAS, ALLOWABLE POWER PER ANTENNA FOR 

RUNS WITH RANDOM ANTENNA DIRECTIONS, AND AVERAGE ALLOWABLE POWER 

Case Total sector 

antennas 

Power per 

sector: Run 1, 

mW 

Power per 

sector: Run 2, 

mW 

Power per 

sector: Run 3, 

mW 

Power per 

sector: Run 4, 

mW 

Power per 

sector: Run 5, 

mW 

Power per 

sector: Avg., 

mW 

1 6 207 100.1 97.6 101.7 99.8 105.4 100.9 

2 24 828 25.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 25.6 

3 7 717 78.5 75.3 74.9 77.5 80.6 77.4 

4 7 545 57.4 63.5 59.3 59.3 57.8 59.5 

5 9 566 88.8 90.7 90.1 85.5 90.7 89.2 

 

6 4 655 133.7 134.5 134.4 133.0 138.8 134.9 

7 3 104 197.2 190.9 195.5 193.3 188.5 193.1 

8 1 552 405.6 387.2 341.5 377.5 383.1 379.0 

9 7 321 75.5 74.7 71.7 76.4 73.9 74.4 

10 6 978 85.4 85.0 79.9 77.5 77.3 81.0 

 

11 6 978 82.9 82.6 79.7 80.5 78.8 80.9 

12 5 491 104.6 103.7 102.5 103.2 101.3 103.1 

13 4 004 126.7 128.4 128.9 131.9 124.4 128.1 

14 2 517 177.1 177.9 174.6 182.1 173.6 177.1 

15 1 324 279.5 283.8 288.9 275.8 298.7 285.3 

 

16 1 057 303.9 313.3 317.2 312.8 301.2 309.7 

17 1 324 231.1 260.6 238.8 246.2 258.3 247.0 

18 1 324 218.2 213.0 211.3 217.9 204.1 212.9 

19 1 324 205.3 187.8 201.2 201.3 192.1 197.5 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 8 

Since there is such a disparity in the traffic volume at 

airports, cases 9 to 19 distinguish between large, medium, and 

small airports. In each of these cases, the models assume 35 

large U.S. airports, 50 large European airports, 123 medium 

U.S. airports, and 50 medium European airports. The 

remaining airports are assumed to be small. In case 9, large 

airports have eight 80 beamwidth sector antennas each, 

medium airports have four each, and small airports have one 

each. Since the average allowable transmitted power per 

antenna is 74.4 mW, large airports can transmit at 595.2 mW 

and medium airports can transmit at 297.6 mW. 

The impact of replacing 80 beamwidth sector antennas 

with 120 beamwidth sector antennas is investigated in 

cases 10 and 11. Case 10 has 120 beamwidth sector antennas 

in Europe and 80 beamwidth sector antennas everywhere 

else; case 11 has 120 beamwidth sector antennas everywhere. 

The difference in average allowable transmitted power for 

cases 10 and 11 is only 0.1 mW suggesting that differences in 

beamwidth of the sector antennas has a minimal impact on the 

interference power hot spot. 

In all the following cases, only 120 beamwidth sector 

antennas were used. The impact of duty cycle is investigated 

by turning the transmitters off at 25, 50, and 75 percent of the 

airports in cases 12, 13, and 14, respectively. This enabled 

significant increases in the average allowable transmitted 

power per antenna to 103.1, 128.1, and 177.1 mW, 

respectively. 

Case 15 is the most realistic scenario since it assumes that 

medium and small airports will not use all 11 available 

channels. With an average allowable transmitted power per 

antenna of 285.3 mW, large airports can transmit 6285.3 = 

1711.8 mW on each of the 11 channels; medium airports can 

transmit 3285.3 = 855.9 mW on each of 6 channels; and 

small airports can transmit 285.3 mW on 1 channel. 

Case 16 is the same as case 15, except that small airport 

antennas can transmit only half the power of large and 

medium airport antennas. With this restriction, large airports 

can transmit 6309.7 = 1858.2 mW on each of the 11 

channels; medium airports can transmit 3309.7 = 929.1 mW 

on 6 channels; and small airports can transmit 0.5309.7 = 

154.8 mW on 1 channel. Cases 17, 18, and 19 are the same as 

case 15, except that each antenna has an upward tilt of 1, 2, 

and 4, respectively. These tilts reduce the allowable 

transmitted power by 13.4, 25.4, and 30.8 percent, 

respectively. It is expected that a downward tilt would 

increase the allowable transmitted power; however, these 

simulations were not undertaken because of a lack of a model 

for simulating reflected power from the Earth. 

Conclusions 

To establish power limits for the Airport Communications 

System (AeroMACS) base station transmitters to avoid 

interference with Globalstar uplinks, base stations with sector 

antenna transmitters at 6207 airports in the United States, 

Europe, and the rest of the world were modeled with 

Visualyse Professional software. Nineteen scenarios were 

simulated and in every case, except the one with pseudoomnidirectional antennas, five different runs were generated 

with the antennas pointing in different random directions. The 

maximum simulated cumulative interference power hot spot at 

low Earth orbit for these runs was used to establish transmitter 

power limits. 

The simulations indicated that the hot spot is most sensitive 

to the power transmitted from European airports because their 

geographic density is higher than that of North America and 

other regions. North American airports still have a significant 

impact, and the rest of the world has only a small impact. 

Simulations also showed that the allowable transmitted power 

significantly increases as the duty cycle is decreased and that 

the azimuthal beamwidth of the transmitting antennas does not 

have a significant effect. 

In the most realistic scenario, case 15, 85 large airports in 

the United States and Europe can transmit up to 

1650 mW on each of 11 available channels before the 

interference threshold is reached; 173 medium airports in the 

United States and Europe can transmit up to 825 mW on each 

of 6 channels; and the 5951 small worldwide airports can 

transmit up to 275 mW on 1 channel. In case 16, the allowable 

power was reduced for small airports resulting in a modest 

increase in allowable power for large and medium airports. 

However, it should not be necessary to provide this restriction 

on small airports since the allowable power levels in case 15 

are more than adequate. 

Glenn Research Center 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Cleveland, Ohio, April 30, 2013. 

References 

1. Kerczewski, R.J.; Budinger, J.M.; and Gilbert, T.J.: 

Technology Assessment Results of the Eurocontrol/FAA 

Future Communications Study. IEEE Aerospace Conference, 

Big Sky, MT, 2008. 

2. Gheorghisor, Izabela L.; Hoh, Yan-Shek; and Leu, Alexe E.: 

Analysis of ANLE Compatibility With MSS Feeder Links. 

MITRE Technical Report MTR090458, 2009. 

3. Wilson, J.D.; and Kerczewski, R.J.: Interference Analysis for 

an Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System. 

IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, 2011. 

4. Hoh, Yan-Shek; Gheorghisor, Izabela L.; and Box, Frank: 

Feasibility Analysis of 5091‒5150 MHz Band Sharing by 

ANLE and MSS Feeder Links. MITRE Product MP 

05W0000083, 2005. 

5. Wilson, J.D.: Dependence of AeroMACS Interference on 

Airport Radiation Pattern Characteristics. Integrated 

Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference, 

Herndon, VA, 2012. 

6. Transfinite Systems Ltd.: Visualyse Professional V7. 2013. 

http://transfinite.com/content/downloadsvisualyse.html 

Accessed Feb. 19, 2013. 
NASA/TP—2013-216480 9 

7. Wilson, Jeffrey D.: Modeling C-Band Co-Channel Interference 

From AeroMACS Omni-Directional Antennas to Mobile 

Satellite Service Feeder Uplinks. NASA/TM—2011-216938, 

2011. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/ 

8. International Telecommunication Union: Reference Radiation 

Patterns of Omnidirectional, Sectoral and Other Antennas in 

Point-to-Multipoint Systems for Use in Sharing Studies in the 

Frequency Range From 1 GHz to about 70 GHz. 

Recommendation ITU‒R F.1336‒3, 2012. 

9. Hakegard, J.E.: Compatibility Study in the AeroMACS 

Frequency Band. Proceedings of 2011 Integrated, 

Communications, Navigation and Surveillance Conference, 

Herndon, VA, 2011, pp. P2‒1 to P2‒14. 

10. OpenFlights: Airport, Airline and Route Data. Airport 

database, 2013. http://openflights.org/data.html Accessed Feb. 

19, 2013. 

11. Operational Evolution Partnership: OEP 35. 2009. 

http://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index.php/OEP_35 Accessed Feb. 19, 

2013. 

12. Air Carrier Activity Information System: Commercial Service 

Airports (Primary and Nonprimary) CY09 Passenger 

Boardings, Updated Nov. 23, 2010. 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allca

rgo_stats/passenger/media/cy09_cs_enplanements.pdf 

Accessed Feb. 19, 2013. 

13. Wikipedia: List of the Busiest Airports in Europe. 2013. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_in_E

urope Accessed Feb. 19, 2013.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-04-2013 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Simulating Global AeroMACS Airport Ground Station Antenna Power Transmission Limits 

To Avoid Interference With Mobile Satellite Service Feeder Uplinks 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Wilson, Jeffrey, D. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 031102.02.03.18.0677.12 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-18566 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TP-2013-216480 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Category: 04 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The Aeronautical Mobile Airport Communications System (AeroMACS), which is based upon the IEEE 802.16e mobile wireless standard, 

is expected to be implemented in the 5091 to 5150 MHz frequency band. As this band is also occupied by Mobile Satellite Service feeder 

uplinks, AeroMACS must be designed to avoid interference with this incumbent service. The aspects of AeroMACS operation that present 

potential interference are under analysis in order to enable the definition of standards that assure that such interference will be avoided. In 

this study, the cumulative interference power distribution at low Earth orbit from transmitters at global airports was simulated with the 

Visualyse Professional software. The dependence of the interference power on antenna distribution, gain patterns, duty cycle, and antenna 

tilt was simulated. As a function of these parameters, the simulation results are presented in terms of the limitations on transmitter power 

from global airports required to maintain the cumulative interference power under the established threshold. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Airports; Antenna gain; Antenna radiation pattern 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

16 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18